Will Fourth 'Harry Potter' Stop Series' Descent?
So far, most critics and fans would agree, every Harry Potter movie has been better than the last one. Statistics, however, suggest a disconnect.I personally sometimes find it difficult to watch a deeper movie again right away, and sometimes I'll only see it once before getting the DVD. (Please bear in mind that I hardly ever go see movies anyway.) When I saw Azkaban, I enjoyed it, but it put me through the wringer mentally, trying to follow the action and think about what had been changed from the book and just keep up with the frenzied pace. I felt like I was too tired after all that to go see it again, so I didn't.
The first one, "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone," released in 2001, grossed $317 million in the United States. No. 2, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets," released in 2002, made $261 million. The third and most acclaimed entry, "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," released in 2004, grossed "only" $249 million.
All were immensely successful, of course, and they collected many more millions overseas, where the studios now make most of their money on theatrical releases. Yet the pattern holds there as well: No. 1 is far and away the biggie, with a combined domestic/overseas gross approaching $1 billion, while No. 2 trails and No. 3 is nearly $200 million behind No. 1.
It does seem that the more inventive and interesting the adaptations are, the more audiences dwindle.
Goblet of Fire's pacing wasn't slow by any means, but it was much easier for me to follow. Maybe that's because the story's better. Maybe the screenplay or the direction is better. I have no idea.
What I do know is that this movie seems to be infinitely rewatchable. I would watch it again right now if I could :)
1 comment:
Yeah, this movie fails as a stand-alone film, unfortunately. There's lots of stuff in it that is wrong or misleading or confusing if you haven't read the book. (Like the Priori Incantatum at the end, which leads people to believe that Harry's parents have come back to life. My friend Hai pointed this one out to me.)
The first two tasks in the Triwizard Tournament were scored from 1 to 10, and for final task, whoever had the highest score could enter the maze first. Fleur had the lowest score, so she entered last. I don't know if there was some rule in the magical contract that everyone who entered had to see it through to the end or what, but I imagine people aren't eliminated from the tournament unless they die. Theoretically, even with her handicap, Fleur could have won if she'd beaten the others to the Cup.
The second task wasn't expressed well in the movie. In the book, everyone found out beforehand that people they cared about had been taken. Harry was tired and freaked out from staying up all night trying vainly to find a way to survive underwater, so his addled mind was convinced that the mermaids' poem was literal and that Ron wouldn't be returned unless he saved him. Ron made fun of him for taking it this seriously later, but Fleur also thought the poem was literal.
The captives' lives actually weren't at risk (Dumbledore saw to that), but people were convinced that they were. This speaks to how serious and dangerous the Triwizard Tournament is.
There are other problems, too, so I would suggest reading the book ;>
I do think this movie was paced better than Azkaban, but I watched Azkaban again last night, and I'd forgotten how damn good the music was in that movie. Maybe Williams could have pulled off Goblet. Too bad he was scoring Memoirs of a Freaking Geisha...
Post a Comment